Ms. Moe
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
26 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
17
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
228 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mrs. Hesse
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Special Agent Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Drescher
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. McHugh
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing (likely for Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Counts Seven and Eight against Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Carolyn testified and wrote down her mother's phone number to avoid saying it aloud. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Jane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution announces intent to rest case | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing Calculation | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule and closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar regarding cross-examination of witness 'Jane'. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government meeting with witness Brian | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a transition between witnesses. After counsel finishes with a witness named Mrs. Hesse, she is excused, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, calls David Rodgers to the stand. Mr. Rodgers is sworn in and, during the initial phase of his direct examination, identifies his profession as a pilot.
DOJ-OGR-00018957.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Ms. Hesse about her knowledge of women visiting Jeffrey Epstein for massages when Ghislaine Maxwell was not present, which Hesse confirms based on messages she took. The testimony also establishes that Hesse knew Maxwell had a home in New York but was unaware of a residence in Miami.
DOJ-OGR-00018954.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination involving a witness named Hesse. The testimony focuses on Hesse's employment history with Maxwell and Epstein, specifically when she started (roughly September 2003) and stopped working for them (around 2004), and that she was hired by Epstein after an interview with Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018953.jpg
This document is page 91 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on identifying a message from 'Carolyn' in Exhibit 3E and establishing that Mrs. Hesse worked at the Palm Beach house specifically when Maxwell and Epstein were not home.
DOJ-OGR-00018952.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The questioning confirms that a person named Carolyn left a message for a Mr. Epstein on March 11, 2003, and directs the witness and jury to review Government Exhibits 4B and 3E.
DOJ-OGR-00018951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney named Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on confirming the spelling of the name 'Carolyn' and identifying a specific message on 'Government Exhibit 2T' that is addressed 'for Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018950.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Hesse by Ms. Moe regarding 'Government Exhibit 1B'. The testimony focuses on identifying specific written messages, one dated 8/12/04 signed by the witness, and another dated 7/30 addressed 'for Mr. Epstein', potentially left by someone named Carolyn or someone with the initial 'K'.
DOJ-OGR-00018948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. An attorney, Ms. Moe, is beginning her direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, regarding 'Government Exhibit 1B'. After a brief delay while the witness locates the exhibit in her binder, Ms. Moe prepares to ask questions, noting the need for discretion by not reading names from the document aloud.
DOJ-OGR-00018947.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse by attorney Ms. Moe. During the examination, Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are admitted into evidence under seal by the judge, despite an objection from attorney Mr. Pagliuca being overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00018946.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe, about admitting message books as evidence. The judge overrules an objection and indicates a preference for admitting the full books, which Ms. Moe agrees to. Following this exchange, the witness, Mrs. Hesse, is dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00018945.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument regarding the admissibility of 'message books' containing caller names, dates, times, and callback numbers intended for the defendant and Mr. Epstein. The Court overrules an objection, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803.6 (Business Records), stating that witnesses Alessi and Hesse provided sufficient foundation that these were regular records rather than miscellaneous jottings.
DOJ-OGR-00018944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe, over the admissibility of certain records. Mr. Pagliuca argues the records are unreliable and lack the necessary details to qualify for the business record exception. Ms. Moe counters that the records are being offered for the limited purpose of showing the dates and times of calls, and their trustworthiness is supported by the testimony of two other witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00018940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Prosecutor Ms. Moe discusses the admissibility and formatting of message exhibits and specifically reads from Government Exhibit 606, a 'household manual,' detailing strict instructions for employees on how to record phone messages.
DOJ-OGR-00018939.jpg
A transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Moe argues for the admissibility of a bound, sequentially numbered book under the 'business records exception,' contending that witnesses do not need to testify to recording entries at the exact moment of occurrence. The Court (Judge) agrees to review the relevant case law during a break.
DOJ-OGR-00018938.jpg
This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) regarding the evidentiary weight and authenticity of message books/logs. Ms. Moe argues the logs are sequential and chronological, while Mr. Pagliuca contends they are disorganized, missing dates, and that multiple books were used haphazardly by staff.
DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the admissibility of spiral-bound message pads used by household staff. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues these are valid business records created under strict instructions from the defendant, while the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) counters that many messages are undated and unsigned, though noting Ms. Hesse's messages were 'well maintained.'
DOJ-OGR-00018936.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Attorney Ms. Moe and the Court discuss the admissibility of exhibits 1B, 3P, and 3X, debating hearsay objections and the criteria for the 'business records' exception. The Judge outlines the requirements for establishing a foundation for business records.
DOJ-OGR-00018935.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the admissibility of a 'spiral bound book' of message slips during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Pagliuca objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 803.6, arguing the witness lacks the knowledge to establish a business record foundation, while Moe counters that the authenticity of the book itself is not in dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00018934.jpg
This document is a page from the trial transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) argue over the admissibility of message slips. The prosecution asserts these records prove a victim named 'Carolyn' contacted 'the house' during the conspiracy, while the defense argues the slips lack dates and signatures and cannot be fully authenticated by the current witness (Hesse).
DOJ-OGR-00018933.jpg
This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) details a legal argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the Judge regarding the admissibility of phone message logs. The prosecution argues these logs are business records that corroborate victim testimony about calling 'the house' to schedule massage appointments. The document specifically notes that the name of a victim who testified the previous day appears in these messages.
DOJ-OGR-00018932.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe is seeking to admit three spiral-bound message books as evidence, arguing they have been properly authenticated and should be admitted despite a hearsay objection, citing that similar evidence was previously accepted in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018931.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the admission of certain records on hearsay grounds, arguing the witness only has personal knowledge of the signatures. In response, the judge decides to address the objection after giving the jury a 15-minute morning break.
DOJ-OGR-00018928.jpg
This page is a transcript of the direct examination of Mrs. Hesse, a former employee of Epstein and Maxwell. She testifies about the protocol for taking phone messages when Epstein and Maxwell were away, specifically describing a blue spiral notebook kept in the kitchen for this purpose. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, then introduces Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018926.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. A witness, identified as Hesse, testifies about being employed around 2003 at the Palm Beach residence of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness states they were hired directly by Ghislaine Maxwell to maintain the home when the owners were not present.
DOJ-OGR-00018925.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of the direct examination of a witness, Nicole Hesse, who has been called by the Government. After being sworn in, Ms. Hesse states and spells her name for the record and answers preliminary questions from an attorney, Ms. Moe, about her birthplace (West Palm Beach, Florida) and where she grew up (North Palm Beach).
Sentencing Guidelines / Supervisory Role
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.
Sentencing recommendation
Requesting an above-guideline sentence to hold the defendant accountable and send a message that no one is above the law.
Scheduling and Sealing
Ms. Moe updates the court that the prosecution anticipates resting their case 'this week' and discusses sealing a document containing pseudonym identities.
Admissibility of Photographs
Discussion regarding whether photographs corroborate a witness's blind description of a residence interior given the time lapse.
Verification of facts
Conferring with the agent involved in breaching the door to verify information.
Cross-examination regarding travel records
Clarifying the start date of travel bookings (1999) and the date range of records in exhibit RS-1 (1999-2006).
Response to Scheduling Concerns
Ms. Moe argues the request is premature but states that if the defense rests the week of the 20th, the jury should be permitted to deliberate.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding clarification of New York vs New Mexico law in jury charges.
Sentencing arguments
Prosecution opening statement regarding sentencing recommendation for Ghislaine Maxwell.
Post-testimony discussion
Ms. Moe spoke with Jane's attorney following Jane's testimony, reminding him of something.
Discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if the conspiracy end date mentioned by the court (July 2004) differs from the sentencing transcript, they will submit a letter to the Court.
Potential discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if a review of exhibits shows a different date than the sentencing transcript, 'we will submit a letter to the Court'.
Potential discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if a review of exhibits shows a different date than the sentencing transcript, 'we will submit a letter to the Court'.
Duration of a criminal conspiracy
MS. MOE argues to the Court that a conspiracy was still active at the end of 2004, citing Carolyn's testimony about visiting Epstein's house as evidence.
Duration of a criminal conspiracy
MS. MOE argues to the Court that a conspiracy was still active at the end of 2004, citing Carolyn's testimony about visiting Epstein's house as evidence.
Court proceedings
Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."
Jane's testimony
Ms. Moe spoke with Jane's attorney following Jane's testimony, recalling that she told and reminded him of something (the details are cut off).
Copy of notes
Ms. Moe suggests that during the court break, they will send an email containing a copy of the notes to the judge's chambers.
Discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if the conspiracy end date from the exhibits differs from the sentencing transcript, she will submit a letter to the Court.
Testimony of Special Agent Maguire regarding their FBI ro...
Ms. Moe questions Special Agent Maguire about their employment at the FBI, their assignment to the C20 child exploitation and human trafficking task force, their specific job responsibilities, and their involvement in an FBI operation on July 6, 2019.
Unknown
Ms. Moe refers to a note she made about a conversation with Mr. Glassman, which she argues cannot be an exhibit at trial.
End date of a conspiracy and post-conspiracy evidence
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows a conspiracy continued through 2004 and into 2005. The Court challenges this, suggesting the evidence is for post-conspiracy conduct as it exceeds the date of Carolyn's 18th birthday, a key element of the charge.
Anonymity Order Confirmation
MS. MOE asks the Court to confirm that the anonymity order for the witness Kate, particularly regarding sketch artists, is in effect.
Response to argument
Ms. Moe, when asked to respond to Mr. Everdell's point, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal and states that they rest on their previously submitted briefing on the issue.
Objection to Offense Level Calculation
Ms. Moe objects to the judge's calculation under guideline 3D1.4, stating that 5 units should add 4 levels, not 5.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity